AbstractIn this paper, I offer a pluralistic framework for disagreement and I develop a strategy to account for the varieties of disagreement on the basis of the varieties of the truth across different domains of discourse. Truth-pluralism is thus sufficient for delivering pluralism about disagreement—that is, diaphonic pluralism.
AbstractCantor's abstractionist account of cardinal numbers has been criticized by Frege as a psychological theory of numbers which leads to contradiction. The aim of the paper is to meet these objections by proposing a reassessment of Cantor's proposal based upon the set theoretic framework of Bourbaki—called BK—which is a First-order set theory extended with Hilbert's $$\varepsilon $$ ε -operator. Moreover, it is argued that the BK system and the $$\varepsilon $$ ε -operator provide a faithful reconstruction of Cantor's insights on cardinal numbers. I will introduce first the axiomatic setting of BK and the definition of cardinal numbers by means of the $$\varepsilon $$ ε -operator. Then, after presenting Cantor's abstractionist theory, I will point out two assumptions concerning the definition of cardinal numbers that are deeply rooted in Cantor's work. I will claim that these assumptions are supported as well by the BK definition of cardinal numbers, which will be compared to those of Zermelo–von Neumann and Frege–Russell. On the basis of these similarities, I will make use of the BK framework in meeting Frege's objections to Cantor's proposal. A key ingredient in the defence of Cantorian abstraction will be played by the role of representative sets, which are arbitrarily denoted by the $$\varepsilon $$ ε -operator in the BK definition of cardinal numbers.
AbstractA large body of research has found that people judge bad foreseen side effects to be more intentional than good ones. While the standard interpretation of this Side-Effect Effect (SEE) takes it to show that the ordinary concept of intentionality is influenced by normative considerations, a competing account holds that it is the result of pragmatic pressure to express moral censure and, thus, that the SEE is an experimental artifact. Attempts to confirm this account have previously been unsuccessful, but Lindauer and Southwood (Am Philos Q 58(2):181–186, 2021) present a study that appears to provide support for it, by cancelling the SEE. We are not convinced. Here, we detail three studies testing their interpretation. The results indicate that it is the purported cancellation, rather than the SEE, that is an experimental artifact.
AbstractTruth pluralists say that truth-bearers in different "discourses", "domains", "domains of discourse", or "domains of inquiry" are apt to be true in different ways – for instance, that mathematical discourse or ethical discourse is apt to be true in a different way to ordinary descriptive or scientific discourse. Moreover, the notion of a "domain" is often explicitly employed in formulating pluralist theories of truth. Consequently, the notion of a "domain" is attracting increasing attention, both critical and constructive. I argue that this is a red herring. First, I identify the theoretical role for which pluralists appeal to domains, which is to answer what I call the "Individuation Problem": saying what determines the way in which a particular truth-bearer is apt to be true. Second, I argue that pluralists need not appeal to domains for this purpose. I thus conclude that, despite the usual way of glossing the view, there is no role for the notion of a "domain" to play in the pluralist's theory of truth. I argue that this defuses the "Problem of Mixed Atomics" and allows the pluralist to sidestep potentially intractable disputes about the nature of domains.
AbstractThe concept of the circular economy has gained significant political momentum because it offers policymakers a viable approach to tackling resource depletion, reducing waste and promoting economic development all at the same time. Current research, however, only focuses on the technological feasibility of this model, overlooking circularity's inherent contradiction: namely, that it valorizes waste rather than reducing it. This article tackles this limit by questioning the role of the state in what we describe as 'waste valorization'. It interrogates the urban political ecology of construction and demolition waste, the largest stream of inert materials in the world. It analyses CDW's geographies and economic position in urban development and the shifting rationales by which it is governed. To do this, it compares historical shifts in how CDW has been regulated in Hong Kong and Rotterdam. The article shows that waste is no longer an abject residual of urbanization, but a driver of urban development and a burgeoning sphere of accumulation in ecological capitalism.
AbstractHomoeopathy is commonly recognised as pseudoscience. However, there is, to date, no systematic discussion that seeks to establish this view. In this paper, we try to fill this gap. We explain the nature of homoeopathy, discuss the notion of pseudoscience, and provide illustrative examples from the literature indicating why homoeopathy fits the bill. Our argument contains a conceptual and an empirical part. In the conceptual part, we introduce the premise that a doctrine qualifies as a pseudoscience if, firstly, its proponents claim scientific standing for it and, secondly, if they produce bullshit to defend it, such that, unlike science, it cannot be viewed as the most reliable knowledge on its topic. In the empirical part, we provide evidence that homoeopathy fulfils both criteria. The first is quickly established since homoeopaths often explicitly claim scientificity. To establish the second, we dive into the pseudo-academic literature on homoeopathy to provide evidence of bullshit in the arguments of homoeopaths. Specifically, we show that they make bizarre ontological claims incompatible with natural science, illegitimately shift the burden of proof to sceptics, and mischaracterise, cherry-pick, and misreport the evidence. Furthermore, we demonstrate that they reject essential parts of established scientific methodology and use epistemically unfair strategies to immunise their doctrine against recalcitrant evidence.
AbstractReichenbach explains temporally asymmetric phenomena by appeal to entropy and 'branch structure'. He explains why the entropic gradients of isolated subsystems are oriented towards the future and not the past, and why we have records of the past and not the future, by appeal to the fact that the universe is currently on a long entropic upgrade with subsystems that branch off and become quasi-isolated. Reichenbach's approach has been criticised for relying too closely on entropy. The more popular approach nowadays is to appeal instead to aparticularlow-entropy initial state—Albert's 'Past Hypothesis'. I'll argue that this neglect of Reichenbach's approach is unwarranted. A Reichenbachian account has important advantages over Albert's: it correctly identifies the minimal temporally asymmetric posit needed to derive key temporally asymmetries and it offers a more adequate account of the record asymmetry. While a Reichenbachian account needs to be supplemented, it provides the right foundations for explaining temporally asymmetric phenomena and what we might ultimately mean by 'the direction of time'.
